The Advent of Obamunism

George Rebane

[This is the submitted form of my column to The Union published in their 15sep12 print and online editions.  The new Union website doesn't appear to have date-specific URLs, and its contents, including my column, have no apparent permalinks.  The column is available in their 'e-edition' which is an image of the print edition.  There I see that some unfortunate edits have taken place that include the substitution of 'hegemony' for 'hegemon', and the capitalization throughout of obamunism.  A reader points to the previous use of obamunism on protest signs, one of which I have added to this post.  Obamunism is also added to the 15sep12 version of the Glossary & Semantics pdf.]

To say that President Obama is a unique piece of work in the Oval Office would be the understatement of this young century.  This man, held in thrall by the country’s liberals, and also in increasing contempt by world leaders – friends and enemies alike - has devised and carried out a set of policies, procedures, and prerogatives in the Executive Branch that is turning out to be truly breathtaking in its sheer audacity.  Because there is a good chance that we may see at least four more years of such a form of governance, we need to give it a name and an informative definition.  Reasoned debate about it in the years to come requires such an extension of language.

I propose we call it obamunism – the ideology and form of administration that President Obama has practiced and promises to continue if he is re-elected as our Chief Executive.  History will show that although certain previous presidents have also displayed aspects and vestiges of obamunism, Barack Obama is the nation’s first full-fledged obamunist President.

Obamunist ideology is formed around an amalgam of collectivist tenets.  The overarching belief of obamunism is that society is best ruled by elitist experts who plan and harmoniously administer our economy, education, entertainment, and our home lives.  Such a framework will require a fundamental transformation of the United States that is unimpeded by any historical documents and precedents.

The national objective of obamunism is that America will become a sharing and caring nation in a new global community of nations.  That it will relinquish its role as a global hegemon, and assume a compliant posture made visible by its broad acceptance of international initiatives for sustainable development like those prescribed in the UN’s Agenda21 accords.

Anathema to obamunism are any domestic and foreign policies which will perpetuate the United States as an independent sovereign nation-state.  Co-operation and conformity with our global neighbors is the only accepted measure of progress.

Obamunistic practice is predicated on the supremacy of the Executive Branch of government.  The Legislative (Congress) and Judicial (Supreme Court) branches are relegated to supportive roles that facilitate the fundamental transformation to proceed apace.  Delay or recalcitrance by either will be handled through pre-emptive executive orders and innovative regulatory interpretations of existing laws.

The private sector will continue to be co-opted through a growing dependency created by massive programs of corporate welfare implemented through ever more comprehensive tax and regulatory codes.  The end game here is a strong public-private partnership the boundaries of which will ultimately become seamless.  In the interval, small business start-ups and residual entrepreneurship will be tolerated to fill in the service and distribution gaps during the transformation phase.

The stability and continuity of obamunism will be managed through the increase of government’s participation in the GDP, the spread of organized labor through the growth of public service unions, and the tight control of public education along with its access and delivered curriculum.  The objective here is to promulgate educational programs that build a co-operative workforce which always sees a welcoming government as the employer of last resort.

Public docility and acceptance will be controlled through the expansion of ‘rights’ which are defined for and bestowed upon classes of people as defined by government.  Such rights will be juxtapositioned against the described advantages of classes who are deemed to resist the overall fundamental transformation of the country.  Rights will be abetted by myriads of compensatory transfer payments to the supportive classes.

Public information will come through a new media-government cooperative whose administrators will be the final arbiters of fair and balanced delivery of news and opinions.  The ability of moneyed interests to own and dictate programming content will be regulated and then ended as ‘the people’ ultimately become content providers and consumers of public media.

As a member of a strengthening global community, America’s military will be downsized and the savings transferred to the build-up of a “civilian national security force” that will assume control of all regional and local investigative and constabulary organs.  New concepts of individual privacy and purview will be explored and implemented with the aid of technology to create harmonious, stable, and sustainable social environments at all local levels.

And finally, the United States Constitution will come under a program of intense review and revision.  Its new form will be submitted to the people for acceptance after an appropriate period of education and clarification.  At this time it is anticipated that America will have transformed itself into a peer member of the global community of nations under laws which transcend the old national borders.  It is then that the obamunistic US presidency will truly become a stepping stone to higher office.

George Rebane is an entrepreneur and a retired systems scientist in Nevada County who regularly expands these and other themes on KVMR and Rebane’s Ruminations (www.georgerebane.com).

Comments

[Russ Steele]

I often suspected the The O has been auditioning for the Secretary-General’s job at the United Nations, the de facto spokesperson and leader of the World, by demonstrating his skills to screw thing up on a global scale.

[TomKenworth]

This term has been in use for some time on protest signs, you didn't invent that.

https://www.google.com/search?q=obamunism+image&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=yJpUUKi5C-qrigKi5oGoBw&ved=0CCAQsAQ&biw=1771&bih=939

We could have avoided all this crap abroad if we had gone on to really develop solar and wind in this country. Without the need for oil, there would be no need for embassies, except as a courtesy, which could be simply withdrawn, along with foreign aid, in the event of irrational behavior. A womanizer, a child molester, credit card and identifty theft, and an idiot made the film. What part of that justifies the death of Stevens, the others, and condemnation of the USA? So there are idiots in the world, what else is new? If Nabulla Cesspoolia has to go to prison, let it be Guantanamo....

[TomKenworth]

I notice the focus here on this blog is suddenly turning away from the MidEast Crisis?

Could the man behind the curtain be concerned about what is coming to light?

http://www.alternet.org/world/inside-islamophobic-religious-right-alliance-whose-film-sparked-crisis-middle-east

[Steven Frisch]

I have to admit I get a little confused when read back to back posts from George (one published on KVMR the next in The Union) one claiming President Obama is a an amateur bumbler and another claiming he is the manager of a well organized global conspiracy. I mean really, which is it? Mastermind or simpleton? This would be a lot easier if you guys could make up your minds.

[George Rebane]

TomK 814am - Thanks for the heads up on obamunism's previous usage. I just want to enter it into our lexicon due to the claims I make.

There is no turn away, from the mideast crisis. The posts on that and their comment streams are alive and well; have at it.

StevenF 819am - I'm afraid its the unique brand of progressive logic that is causing your confusion. Obama indeed is an amateur in executing the indicated functions of the Executive Office. But that doesn't preclude his being a dedicated ideologue with a well-structured view of how he wants to fundamentally transform the country.

The notions of policy objectives and execution are entirely orthogonal. Thanks for highlighting this for those who might be similarly confounded.

[TomKenworth]

In my universe, George, both of those constellations of skill sets are located in the same region of the sky. No more orthogonal than the Big and Little Dipper.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/keachie/1138449543/lightbox/

[Steven Frisch]

I would tend to agree...kind of hard to be a amateur and an evil genius at the same time.

[George Rebane]

TomK 857am - Exactly so Doug, exactly so. That is the prime reason for the chasm of reason between the Left and the Right.

[TomKenworth]

Here's an outlook I can agree with: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-johnson/libya-afghanistan-and-the_b_1885594.html

[TomKenworth]

"The notions of policy objectives and execution are entirely orthogonal. "
~ George Rebane | 15 September 2012 at 08:32 AM~

Which is why many of us fear what a Dismantler of Companies might do if he had a country to play with. And he'd do it guilt free too, down whatever path proved least expensive to the ruling class.

[Steven Frisch]

Ha, I love that...If he is elected he will be the Dismantler In Chief.

[Walt]

Back when "O" was stumping for Prez, he claimed that islamic hostilities would die down if he was elected.
That can start any time. But don't count on it.

"Then-Senator Barack Obama makes the case for an Obama Presidency on November 21, 2007 by saying he is uniquely qualified to bring stability to America's relationships in the Muslim world because he lived in an Islamic country during his youth and his half-sister is Muslim."

[THEMIKEYMCD]

Let's see if my comment can be as dramatic as your post...

Apathy (with a twist of cynicism) has allowed government to assume the role of God to too many.

The dysfunction of government (read idol) insures that this is indeed '...the last great century of man.'

Well thought out and well written George. Well done.

[George Rebane]

re TomK 914am's "Dismantler in Chief". Romney's efforts as a capitalist was at every turn to reinject value into assets that were either failing or fallow. And he did this with remarkable skill and success. What people unfamiliar with economics and capitalism see is only the one side of such enterprise, which was neither invented by Bain nor terminated with Romney's departure.

Given the monstrosity that is now our federal government, a man of Romney's experience is one more reason to elect him, and replace the amateur there now, who, by his own words, has learned nothing from his years-long cavalcade of mistakes.

And here it may profit to return to the difficult concept of ideology and implementation orthogonality that stumps the rank and file progressive. Recent history provides marquee examples of leaders who possessed well formed ideologies with explicit objectives for their countries, but were abysmal in the execution of leadership to form and implement policies that would achieve their objectives.

Lenin, Hitler, and Mao spring to mind as amateurs with no experience in executive statesmanship, leaders who killed millions as they stumbled toward their visions of a perfect world. Yet all of them had published well-formed ideologies which became the totems around which their cognitively confused followers rallied, not understanding the vast space between such 'constellations of skills'. And as we can tell from today's debates, nothing much has changed.

[Walt]

I can hear his next stump speech already. " You,,, must vote for me,,, because,,,, this is no time,,, to um,, switch leadership,,,
during a time of unrest."

Count on it.

[George Rebane]

[This thread was erroneously started under 'An Amateur in the White House'; it belongs here instead. gjr]

** Posted by: Michael Anderson | 15 September 2012 at 09:33 PM

George, I posted the following comments over at Sierra Foothills Report. I'd be interested in reading your replies, even if you aren't willing to post them over there.
--------------------------

Michael Anderson, on September 15, 2012 at 8:47 pm said:
Obamunism doesn’t actually exist, and while I will give George a “nice try” award, his efforts are for naught. You might as well claim that President Eisenhower was a member of the Communist Party.
Reply
Michael Anderson, on September 15, 2012 at 8:48 pm said:
BTW, if George Rebane really wanted to reach out to folks other than the choir, he would post here. The fact that he doesn’t is telling.

** Posted by: Russ Steele | 15 September 2012 at 10:25 PM

Michael@09:33

Why would someone want to waste their time posting at Sierra Foothills Report, when so many posts just vanish with no explanation. I stopped posting over there years ago. It is just a waste of time. If some wants to know what I think about an issue, they can read my blogs, or this blog.

I do not see any reason for George to post the Sierra Foothills report, it just drives traffic to a site that no one is reading any way, except the folks in the front row of a very small church.

** Posted by: George Rebane | 15 September 2012 at 10:32 PM

MichaelA 933pm - Thank you for drawing my attention to FUE's blog. I don't frequent that blog because the FUE is not a nice man, and writes things that are nasty, droll, or better sourced elsewhere. It's possible to go into much more detail on his shortcomings, but there's no profit in it. (Kindly correspondents inform me from time to time when he launches one of his diatribes against me and/or tries to get my voice silenced and shunned. I think it happens mostly when FUE has trouble with his numbers.)

Re reaching out to other than the choir, I would offer that you would not assign more than half the commenters here to anything labeled as "the choir". In addition to my Union column and KVMR commentaries, my readership is of a size that humbles me, and I am grateful to have their attention and interest in the ideas I present and/or we subsequently discuss/debate. I would estimate that of the thousands of monthly unique visitors to RR, half are of the liberal bent. My informal poll of local encounters and emails from those who say they read me seems to corroborate that. In short, I am quite content with the audience I reach. FUE's readers know well where they can read me.

Re Obamunism - you are quite mistaken, obamunism does indeed exist, because I have given an extensive and testable definition of it, and the rationale for offering that extension to the language. The measure of my efforts is in the utility that the label has in future discussions of presidential ideology and policies. And the measure of my definition's accuracy is obtained from its power to explain past actions, and its reliability in predicting responses to future events. So far my email and phone calls on the column have provided quite a bit of comfort.

Nevertheless, your criticism tells me that you didn't understand my column as indicated by your reference to Eisenhower and the Communist Party. But your hubris in pronouncing the worth of something which you do not understand, and over which you have no reasonable purview (save a gratuitous put down) does surprise me.

[billy T]

obamunism: we don't need no stinkin Congress, no stinkin Supreme Court, no stinkin cabinet.

obamunism: touch the hem of my garment and you will be healed.

obamunism: living in a liberal bubble surrounded by reality.

[Russ Steele]

billyt@06:29AM

You wrote “obamunism: living in a liberal bubble surrounded by reality.” It is so spot on.

In the 90s we had some very liberal relatives who lived and worked in Washington DC. In our conversations they often told us that we just did not understand the real situation living in California. Our view was the folks in Washington DC were living in bubble and did not understand the real world. It was only after retiring to Delaware for several years, that they discovered that we were correct, the folks inside the Beltway really do live in a self constructed bubble of artificial reality. Even though they have not given up being liberals, they now recognize that the real world works much different than the elites inside the bubble thinks it does. Under Obama the size of the bubble has grown, and the intensity of artificial reality has increased. Those who do not believe are soon forced out of the bubble.

[Russ Steele]

There is true leadership and then there is Obamunism

Compare Margaret Thatcher and Rushdie to Obama and Nakoula.

When Salman Rushdie had a death fatwa pronounced on him for a novel considered insulting to Islam, Margaret Thatcher immediately ordered a protective detail to be sent to Rushdie, who took him to an undisclosed secure location. They have been protecting him ever since. Bear in mind that Rushdie had been a severe and vocal critic and political opponent of Thatcher.

Compare and contrast to Obama and Holder’s treatment of Nakoula. Obama takes Nakoula in for questioning, revealing where he and his family lives.

The reaction to Britain in the Middle East was not noticeably worse than the reaction the USA is getting despite Obama’s apologies.

The difference is clear. Thatcher was a leader and did the right thing. Obama is a weak bumbler, who can only do the left thing!

[Barry Pruett]

Including Mr. Pelline, there are seven voices commenting on his post that could write and submt a well-written and thoughtful article to The Union in support of Pres. Obama’s policies and ideology. I am pretty sure that The Union would print it.

Rebane writes: “Public information will come through a new media-government cooperative whose administrators will be the final arbiters of fair and balanced delivery of news and opinions.”

Isn’t that what is kind of going on here? Bullying The Union in order to restrict speech? Clearly, George’s views are George’s…as much as Amy Goodman’s views are her own. They are not The Union’s.

Instead of bullying and attacking George personally, maybe theyyou all should debate the merits (or lack thereof) of his article.

[Paul Emery]

Russ

Does Paul Ryan, a professional politician who has virtually never held a private sector job since college qualify as one of your "bubble boys"?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/08/15/1120382/-Paul-Ryan-in-Congress-since-he-was-28-pretends-to-be-McDonald-s-working-Everyman

"Only with Mitt Romney as the presidential nominee could you have a ticket in which a guy who was elected to Congress at 28 after working on the Hill for several years was tapped to play the role of the Everyman Who Understands You Commoners......

That is some optimistic, forward-looking, Grade-A American Dream bullshit right there. Because again, Paul Ryan's stints at service work came between high school and the year or two immediately out of college, and in that year or two immediately out of college, he was already working on the Hill. Stuck? He was on "a path and journey" to be in Congress by the time he was 28 years old! And before he got there, he had a year working in marketing for his family's construction firm.

Paul Ryan may have learned important things from low-wage work. But one thing he definitely didn't learn from low-wage work was what it's like to face a lifetime of low-wage work, what it's like to try to build a life and support a family while working at McDonald's. Ryan was already trying his damnedest to injure the people living those lives by raising their taxes and shredding the safety net. Now he's adding insult to that injury, insulting his audiences and the people struggling to get by—to pay all their bills and raise their kids, with no marketing job or House seat on the horizon—by pretending he knows any of that.

[George Rebane]

PaulE 941am - do we detect a generalization of qualifications for President coming out of you here? If you're not careful, before you know it you'll be starting to pop out tenets of an ideology, thereby giving an important counter example to Professor Gage's research I reported on here
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2012/08/the-liberals-intellectually-baseless-ideology.html

In any event, an important perspective on the relative business experience of Romney/Ryan vs Obama/Biden is that the former are at least batting 500, while the latter sits at zero, and has a four year record of demonstrated incompetency in the office at issue. Prudence calls for us to at least apply the well-known definition for 'insanity', and try something else.

[Paul Emery]

No generalizations George. Ryan is qualified to be VP unlike Ms Palin who was put in to insure a Repub loss in '08. I was just commenting on the lack of non government experience experience Ryan has and how he can hardly qualify as a citizen politician model that you and others at this place hold up as desirable. He, along with conservative heartthrob Tom McClintock are undeniably professional politicians that I would think would be opposite your ideal. If Ryan isn't one of the folks "inside the Beltway really do live in a self constructed bubble of artificial reality". (Russ Steele 16 September 2012 at 07:43 AM) I don't now who is. It's fine to support him as a candidate but how can he be tagged as a non Washington insider when that's all he's ever done and it was his sole ambition as a young man to be a career politician. I have no problem with that myself. Perhaps you can educate me as to why they qualify for exception to your rule.

[Paul Emery]

Ryss George

Is short can we agree that Ryan and McClintock are career politicians?

[George Rebane]

PaulE 1248pm - I have never made any representations that Ryan is not a Washington insider. I think Repubs are playing that aspect as a plus, since they have one partner as an outsider and the other as an insider. Same argument Obama made for Biden in 2008.

Indeed, Ryan and McClintock are career politicians.

[Walt]

Just when I thought the Obummer camp couldn't get any lower in the
" give me your stuff" to fund his campaign,( wedding gifts, gift cards, etc.) Now they want you to hold yard sales. They even will send you a special yard sale sign with "O"'s logo.( probably at a nominal fee of course)
So,, who will be the first to hold one with the official sign, and be the laughing stock of the neighborhood?

[George Rebane]

Walt 356pm - I hadn't heard of that approach to campaign contributions. But I think it will be a money maker. There are a lot of Obama constituents who will go/look/buy, and once having some skin in the game, they will be more likely to vote for Obama.

Romney should have his own yard sales going - if not for the money, then for the involvement and getting votes.

[Paul Emery]

Yard sales-what a great idea. Grass roots campaigning for sure. The Romney campaign seems dazed and confused and is having trouble holding on to it's base.

"Bryan Fischer, an official with the American Family Association, went even further, accusing Romney's campaign of putting "a bag over Paul Ryan's head."

Like others here, he warned that if Romney loses, the Republican Party is certain to undergo a tough period. "Soul-searching," "self-reflection" and "tumult" were the words others used.

If the Republican Party loses this election, conservatives will have had it," Fischer said. "They will be done, finished."

Romney did not appear in person at the Values Voters gathering this year, instead appearing via video. His campaign clearly understands the nervousness among a group that's not Romney's natural constituency; it sent their favorite son _ Ryan _ to reassure them.

"http://www.stltoday.com/news/national/govt-and-politics/gop-activists-to-romney-why-aren-t-you-winning/article_3b25fd09-074a-5847-a05e-8f2437cb77a2.html

[George Rebane]

PaulE 451pm - "If the Republican Party loses this election, conservatives will have had it," Fischer said. "They will be done, finished."

There will still be a few conservatives and conservetarians like me left here and there. I suppose that we'll be actively hunted down for our sins of revealing then opposing obamunism. Perhaps there will be isolated 'Alamos' where we'll die on the barricades - kinda romantic, don't you think. Maybe they'll make a musical out of it a hundred years from now.

[Paul Emery]

As I said when Obama wins and the Dems retain the Senate the great schism will come when the social conservatives lead by the thumpers and the economic conservatives go separate paths. There will be no option.

[Steven Frisch]

It has been done already....The Man of la Mancha derivative of Don Quixote.

[Walt]

If Frisch and friends have their way with an everything free society, the only thing that won't be free is us.

Consider the Constitution nul and void if "O" wins.
He has been ignoring it since he was elected the first time.
With nothing to lose, he would "executive order" till he had writer's cramp, and the auto pen wore out.

[George Rebane]

Gentlemen - I was thinking more of a clever synthesis of 'Man of la Mancha' and 'Les Miserables'. But I can see if the obamunistic policies win out, there will definitely be an era when the only politically feasible production will lean heavily toward 'la Mancha'. Perhaps at that time out of the ashes will also arise our own Solzhenitzyn.

[Paul Emery]

This is why Gary Johnson has the inside track for my vote,

Thanks for the link Tom Kenworth

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gary-johnson/libya-afghanistan-and-the_b_1885594.html

"I have a better idea: Stop trying to manipulate and manage history on the other side of the globe and then being shocked when things don't turn out the way we wanted. As far as what we do right now in response to the tragic events of this week, it's actually pretty simple. Get our folks out of places they don't need to be -- and out of harm's way -- and cut off every dime of U.S. tax dollars we are sending to clearly ungrateful regimes...........

We're broke. We are borrowing or printing 43 cents of every one of the more than $4 billion a year we are sending to Pakistan, Libya and Egypt. And all those missiles we launched, and the war in Afghanistan are likewise being put on the national credit card. Why are we building roads, bridges, hospitals and schools half a world away on borrowed money? Don't we have those same needs here at home?

It's time to tell and face the truth: The Bush-Obama-and-now-Romney interventionist approach to foreign policy is getting Americans killed and contributing to the bankruptcy of our nation without clear sight of our national interests. By what measure is that good policy?"

[TomKenworth]

You could make a quick buck by coming out with a 25 day countdown Obamunism Advent Calendar, with ???? behind each door.

[George Rebane]

TomK 722pm - great idea Doug, but I respect intellectual property too much to get in your way. You should do it.

PaulE 721pm - all good and worthy thoughts. But Gary Johnson misses an important insight if he ascribes our "interventionist approach" to the last two Presidents and Romney. We have had an interventionist approach since at least TeddyR, and our Latino friends would argue back to the 1830s when in the First Barbary War (1801-05) Jefferson had already ordered the Marines "to the shores of Tripoli."

Our interventions were numerous but not uniform after 7 Dec 41. We did well when we went in with strength and purpose, and very poorly when our interventions were weak and undirected. By my lights, the world has mostly benefited from our interventions, but those days may be over.

We may indeed have to go into a circled wagons mode, and strike seldom, severely (not "proportionately"), and with swiftness to punish those who would mess with our freedom to trade globally. Friedman's (Stratfor) analysis of the US carrying out destabilizing, victory-less, conflicts since WW2 may have to go by the board. In sum, looking at our overseas interventions as something we have come upon recently is naive.

[Michael Anderson]

George wrote: "Lenin, Hitler, and Mao spring to mind as amateurs with no experience in executive statesmanship, leaders who killed millions as they stumbled toward their visions of a perfect world."

Seriously? This is your protraction of Obama? Weird.

[Michael Anderson]

"FUE's readers know well where they can read me."

But that's different than getting over there and engaging in the scrum. Your absence diminishes your message.

[Michael Anderson]

"Nevertheless, your criticism tells me that you didn't understand my column as indicated by your reference to Eisenhower and the Communist Party. But your hubris in pronouncing the worth of something which you do not understand, and over which you have no reasonable purview (save a gratuitous put down) does surprise me."

George, I understand what you are saying perfectly. My comments are regarding the so-called facts you cite to make the case that Obama is a Communist. He is not a Communist! It's a ridiculous argument!!

And, sorry to say, you appear ridiculous trying to make the case.

But let's keep going, I am not yet done with this thread...

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 842pm - Really Michael, this is becoming an embarrassment. I don't know where you spent the interval, but you didn't bring back everything that you took with you.

The comment thread from which you quoted (my 1108am) was discussing the semantic orthogonality of having a well formed ideology and poor implementation skills. The Left's logic appears not to allow such independence, most certainly not in Obama, and you aren't even on the same page.

The quoted statement simply presents the most prominent counter-examples which prove my point. I could have thrown in FDR and Lyndon Johnson, but they didn't leave much of a written record of their ideology, and depended instead on hired institutional lackeys to attempt to construct cohesive ideologies - none succeeded, hence I left them out. I hope this helps.

[Michael Anderson]

Barry P. wrote: "Isn’t that what is kind of going on here? Bullying The Union in order to restrict speech? Clearly, George’s views are George’s…as much as Amy Goodman’s views are her own. They are not The Union’s."

For the record, I do think that some people are trying to keep The Union from publishing George's tomes. I am not one of those people. I could also care less if his columns appear under the masthead.

I will address exactly what Barry asks for, and that is a critical analysis of what George wrote. As I am hoping I have made crystal clear, I think "Obamunism" is bullcrap, what George wrote is an agitprop pamphlet, and the entire column is beneath his intellect and long-term message.

[Michael Anderson]

Paul E. wrote: "Like others here, he warned that if Romney loses, the Republican Party is certain to undergo a tough period. 'Soul-searching,' 'self-reflection' and 'tumult' were the words others used."

Ain't never gonna happen. Every time the Republicans lose, this is the faulty shibboleth they trot out. Poor, poor, pitiful me, as Linda Ronstadt used to wail.

[George Rebane]

Michael 851pm - sorry that our replies crossed in the inscrutable cloud.

Michael, I know full well the definition of a communist, have posted on it here, and included it in this blog's Glossary & Semantics. Had I wanted to call Obama a communist, I would have done so. Instead, I have described obamunism as a specific amalgam of collectivist thought and implementation goals that in its execution does not achieve communistic levels (although I don't believe obamunism to be a stable form of governance). I am truly sorry that you don't appreciate this distinction.

Perhaps this little cognitive dissonance can provide some profit in explaining why I, and many others here, don't participate in the FUE's "scrum", since I do consider you to be one of the brightest bulbs on FUE's tree.

[Michael Anderson]

"It has been done already....The Man of la Mancha derivative of Don Quixote."

Hilarious!

[Michael Anderson]

"Perhaps at that time out of the ashes will also arise our own Solzhenitzyn."

Well, one thing we know for sure...it won't be Joe Biden.

[TomKenworth]

If The Union goes broke, will FUE become FUEFU?

[Michael Anderson]

"Instead, I have described obamunism as a specific amalgam of collectivist thought and implementation goals that in its execution does not achieve communistic levels (although I don't believe obamunism to be a stable form of governance). I am truly sorry that you don't appreciate this distinction."

George, I am truly sorry that I wasn't more clear. I get that you don't think that Obama is really a Communist, but my issue with "obamaunism" is that most people will not understand the nuance, and come to the conclusion that the person invoking "obamunism" is claiming that Obama is a communist.

Are we getting closer?

[George Rebane]

MichaelA 958pm - OK, with that clarification, which I totally missed, let me take another crack at it.

I am not a journalist (today consigned to the same circle as the lawyers in Purgatorio), but a commentator and ideologue with a, what I'm told, a unique perspective because of my life's experience and training. I gave up communicating to the lesser lights (yes, recall that I'm also an elitist) when I left industry. There the tedium was required in order to earn my daily bread, and I know it's hard to believe, but I was good at it.

So here I am, not trying to be a populist in any sense of the word. Not even trying to emulate Victor Davis Hanson whom I admire greatly. All I'm trying to do is shine my little light on those few of goodwill who will take the time to read and think precisely, and then see if we can build some mental models of working societies, put them through gedank experimenten and see if the still work or need to be tweaked (or abandoned).

In the last two days the feedback on my obamunism column has been beyond heartening. I have lost count of the people (in person and emails) who have said so many kind things about my putting out those thoughts and giving them a usable label. Their common thread is the question of why has no one stated so succinctly what so many in the country have seen and expect in the future.

The 'pushback' (a kind characterization) from the Left was entirely expected. The spectrum and structure of the critiques have been most interesting. Even FUE's provides some measure of amusement. (BTW, Bob Crabb drew a great cartoon some time back of FUE's character as seen through his blog, I posted it but haven't been able to find the URL yet. Will point to it when I do, since it really explains why I have never gone there unless directed by someone else, and why I don't participate there.) Anyway, as Popeye said, 'Iyam what Iyam!', take me or Vaya con Dios. Doing the column, radio commentary, and RR is hard work. So far I'm enjoying it.

[George Rebane]

Found Bob Crabb's cartoon on the FUE's character as reflected in through his blog.
http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2011/03/beware-the-rl-crabb.html